To say the least, the Obama administration was not notable for respecting the "special relationship" that is supposed to exist between the United States and Great Britain since the two countries led the
Allies to victory in World War II. This became a point of contention during the 2012 presidential election, when the
elitist faction media generated an outsized furor over GOP nominee Mitt Romney's frank remarks about British security preparations for the London Olympics. Given Obama's record of plausibly
premeditated signals of disdain, those who saw the media tempest as clear proof of media bias had good reason to do so.

It makes sense, therefore, to expect Donald Trump to reverse the careless, disdainful posture toward Great Britain the U.S. government took during Obama's tenure. Careful reinvigoration of the "special
relationship" will benefit both countries. Given candidate Trump's expressed interest in also moving U.S.-Russian relations away from their present perilously contentious course, a reinvigorated "special
relationship" with Russia might set the stage for reinventing the alliance – improbable as it was at the time – that produced the Allied triumph over Hitler. As constitutional democracies, Great
Britain and the United States responded to that circumstantial imperative by forging a workable alliance with the totalitarian, communist dictatorship that ruled the Soviet Union.

Today, all three countries are formally committed to maintaining constitutional government. All three are more or less committed to private enterprise, as the main engine for economic growth. All three
have significant Muslim populations and therefore face the task of assuring fair treatment for their law-abiding Muslim citizens, even as they seek effectively to eliminate the existential threat of violent
Islamic jihadist terrorism.

Just as the United States was the lynchpin of the improbable alliance that defeated the Nazi menace, President Trump's declared aims should allow us to be the lynchpin of the alliance that defeats the
menace of Islamic jihadist terrorism. At the moment however, U.S. relations with both these once (and future?) allies is under a shadow, emanating from the government sector replete with shadows. That
sector is crucial to dealing with terrorist threats. In fact, it's generally crucial to handling issues of international security. Both Russia and Great Britain now stand accused of interfering in the recent U.S.
presidential election: the first to favor the election of Donald Trump, the second to help Obama discredit him.

What's especially intriguing is that these accusations tend to undermine a) the American people's trust and confidence in our government's intelligence service; and b) the institutional trust and
confidence vital to co-operation between the intelligence services of Great Britain and the United States. Instead of simply focusing on the media accounts of the punches and counter-punches these
accusations are generating, Americans need to take a step back. We need to consider the crucial benefits we would derive from competently reforging the coalition that actually won the greatest
war in human history. And with those benefits in mind, we need to consider the age-old question of motive, "Cui bono?"

Who benefits most from preventing this historically proven partnership from reinventing itself? Absent the accusation of British malfeasance, the effect of the remaining accusations undermines America's
trust in the impartiality of our intelligence services. But the implied substance of the revelations seems calculated to raise questions about the Trump administration's motives for seeking to improve
relations with the Russian government under Vladimir Putin. The latter questions may, at the very least, postpone any moves to improve relations with Russia. But the suspicion they generate may harden
public feeling against Russia, souring relations.

Undermining trust in our intelligence services may, at the very least, give rise to a purge mentality, which could deprive us of seasoned veterans whose experience sustains concrete results vital to our
intelligence-gathering capabilities. But it could also impel the U.S. Congress to curtail the
activities and capabilities of our intelligence assets, despite the persistent threat from Islamic jihadist terrorist cells. Thanks to the Obama administration's treacherously lax refugee and immigration
policies, it's likely that such cells are already in place on our territory.

This latter effect would make our historically intimate cooperation with Great Britain's intelligence services more important than ever. Unfortunately, the notion that British intelligence services helped
Obama to spy on Donald Trump and his people, in violation of U.S. law, may poison the reservoirs of trust and goodwill at both ends of the conduits of information between the two governments. If purges
of the U.S. intelligences services disrupt personal ties at both ends, that will complicate matters. Some things take time (which is to say the actual experiences time allows) to develop.

When we add the foregone opportunity costs of postponing or preventing the reinvention of U.S.-British-Russian cooperation to the damaged trust and confidence between the U.S. and Great Britain, and
between the American people and their intelligence services, the people who lose least and benefit most appear to be the ones who pose the most immediate threat to the people of the United
States – the terrorism-minded Muslims bent on violent jihad.

Since the Congress of the United States is the branch that ought to be most concerned with safeguarding the American people, members of Congress need to refresh their sense of obligation to our
nation's common good; then, they must let this obligation guide their response to our intelligence crisis toward a positive goal, without rancor or partisanship, in order to do what we have to do to resolidify
the basis for our trust in security services indispensable to our safety.

Alan Keyes

Dr. Keyes holds the distinction of being the only person ever to run against Barack Obama in a truly contested election – one featuring authentic moral conservatism vs. progressive liberalism – when they challenged each other for the open U.S. Senate seat from Illinois in 2004... (more)

Dr. Keyes holds the distinction of being the only person ever to run against Barack Obama in a truly contested election – one featuring authentic moral conservatism vs. progressive liberalism – when they challenged each other for the open U.S. Senate seat from Illinois in 2004.

During the Reagan years, Keyes was the highest-ranking black appointee in the Reagan Administration, serving as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations and as Ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

He ran for president in 1996, 2000, and 2008, and was a Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Maryland in 1988 and 1992, in addition to his 2004 candidacy for the U.S. Senate from Illinois.

He holds a Ph.D. in government from Harvard and wrote his dissertation on constitutional theory.

His basic philosophy can best be described as "Declarationism" – since he relies on the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence to define the premises on which our country was founded, and to which it must remain committed if it is to survive. To Dr. Keyes, the Constitution itself cannot be faithfully interpreted, understood, or applied apart from the divinely-premised principles of the Declaration.

When Keyes ran for president in 2000, the media generally considered him the winner of the Republican primary debates, due to the persuasive eloquence of his defense of the unborn, opposition to unfair taxation, advocacy of school choice, promotion of family values, and focus on what he called "America's moral crisis." As a result, he became the host of MSNBC-TV's "Alan Keyes Is Making Sense" in 2002.

He is best known for thrusting the evil of abortion – which he considers our nation's "greatest moral challenge" – into the national spotlight.

Keyes is also a strong supporter of Israel, and in 2002 he was flown by the Israeli government to the Holy Land to receive an award for his staunch defense of Israel in the media. He is the only American ever to receive such an honor from the State of Israel.

When Keyes ran against Obama for the Senate in 2004, he did so because he was incensed the Democrat "community organizer" refused to support the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois on several occasions – a measure approved not long afterward by the U.S. Senate, 100 to 0.

Alan is available to address interested venues of students, educators, civic groups, professional organizations, public servants, political advocates, churches, and others who are interested in preserving our nation's institutions of liberty.

To arrange a speech or special appearance by Dr. Keyes, you can email him at: alan@<NOSPAM>loyaltoliberty.com.